Bellringer
 Do you believe the U.S. Constitution should be followed
word for word?
OR
 Do you think that the U.S. Constitution should be
interpreted to fit today’s society?
 Please put your reference page in the bin!
Judicial 1
Today we will …
Objectives
Agenda
 Discuss how our judiciary
1.
was designed and why.
 Explain judicial review and
analyze its origin in this
country to Marbury v.
Madison.
 Compare/contrast original
intent & evolving constitution
interpretations of the
Constitution.
Federalist No. 78 reading
groups
2. Marbury v Madison
review article
3. Competing Views on
Interpretation pair/share
4. Closure
Federalist #78
Why do we need a judiciary?
Why should it be independent?
Reading Groups:
1. Preview questions 1-3.
2. Read Federalist #78 together.
• Ex post facto, bills of attainder, etc.
3.
Discuss & answer the questions together.
Federalist #78 – Hamilton said …
 Judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political




rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a
capacity to annoy or injure them”- still true?
The Judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the
purse” -still true?
The Judiciary “has neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely
judgment”- still true?
Must be independent of the EXEC & LEG, represents a
Limited Constitution – still true?
Justices must have permanent tenure with good behavior to
resist encroachment by the LEG- still true?
Check for Understanding
 What does this political
cartoon say about the
relationship between the
judicial, executive and
legislative branches?
 What would Madison say
about this cartoon?
1. Marbury v. Madison: Reading
Legal Model= Slot Machine Model
 The Facts
 The Law - precedents, constitutions,
laws, & regulations
 The Independent Judge or Decision
Maker - a judge must be judicially
independent from influence from either
party & independent from influence from
the political branches.
 A court must be independent to make
unpopular decisions that protect the civil
liberties of minorities (anti-majoritarian).
 The Holding: The components result in
the proper decision being made every
time.
 Your payoff NEVER
depends upon who you are
or the political
environment you operate
in.
 The judgment is a simple
decision for one of the two
parties in the suit.
Marbury V. Madison
 The Facts: William Marbury is appointed a federal
magistrate and confirmed by the Senate. Before his
commission is delivered by the Secretary of State, a new
presidential administration takes over power. James
Madison, the new secretary of state, refuses to deliver the
commission. Marbury files suit.
Marbury V. Madison
 The Law: Marbury sues for a writ of mandamus (an order
compelling an action by a government official) under the
Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted original jurisdiction to
the Supreme Court. Original jurisdiction simply means that
the suit is filed in the Supreme Court and tried there, as
compared with appellate jurisdiction, in which the case is tried
in a lower court (district court), and the Supreme Court
reviews the earlier decision.
Marbury V. Madison
 Holding: The writ of mandamus is denied. Marbury does
not receive his commission.
 Legal Reasoning: The portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789
that grants original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court is
unconstitutional. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court
original jurisdiction only in certain specified cases. Congress
cannot expand the grant of original jurisdiction as set out in the
Constitution. Hence, that portion of the Act is
unconstitutional. It is solely the province of the judiciary to
decide what the Constitution says.
Judicial Review
 Judicial Review: The right of the federal courts to rule on
the constitutionality of laws, executive acts (acts of the
President & bureaucratic laws), and state laws.
 Marbury v Madison
 Federalist 78, “The courts were designed to be an intermediate
body between the people and the legislature”
 “No Legislative Act… contrary to the Constitution, can be
valid. To deny this would be to affirm… that the servant is
above his master, that the representatives of the people are
superior to the people themselves”
Check for understanding
 Where is judicial review mentioned in the Constitution?
 What does this say about the founders expectations of the
federal courts?
2. Reading: Original Intent or Evolving
Constitution
Original Intent Strict Constructionist/Conservative
Evolving Constitution –
Loose/Activist/Liberal
Step 1:
 With your partner read the article and take notes on either
Original Intent OR Evolving Constitution viewpoint (you will be
assigned)
 Draw a cartoon that illustrates your viewpoint of the
Constitution or the court
2. Reading: Original Intent or Evolving
Constitution
Original Intent Strict Constructionist/Conservative
Evolving Constitution –
Loose/Activist/Liberal
Step 2:
 Share your viewpoints & cartoon with a pair that represents
the opposing side
 Make a T-Chart that compares the 2 viewpoints
 Discuss which side you most agree with.
CLOSURE
Judiciary
Homework
 How does judicial review
 Judiciary A Questions #s
empower the Supreme
Court within the system of
checks and balances?
 How might judicial
activism influence
decisions made by
individual judges when
deciding cases heard by the
court?
3-6
 Make the Supreme Court
Justices chart
3. The doctrine of original intent holds that
(A) Supreme Court justices must emphasize independent and
original thinking in considering constitutional matters
(B) the meaning of the Constitution depends on the intention of the
framers
(C) cases selected for review by the Supreme Court must address an
original and new concern not previously addressed by the Court
(D) Supreme Court justices should avoid bias by documenting their
original impressions of a case
(E) the Supreme Court should review all treaties that alter previously
established foreign policy.